Talk:Rules
From Geography
Rating (from 0-10, 10 being the highest, and 6 being just sufficient)
1. Relevance: It is relevant for this course. Rating: 8 (0-10) Comments: This wiki is very relevant, as it shortly explains one of the concepts of Werlen.
2. Well-written:
a) well-written: its prose is engaging, even brilliant, and of a professional standard; the prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct; Rating: 6 (0-10) Comments: The wiki consists of short, clear and grammatically correct sentences. That makes it easy to read. There are however a few spelling mistakes that could be corrected.
b) comprehensive: it neglects no major facts or details and places the subject in context. Rating: 8 (0-10) Comments: It is actually very well done. The wiki explains Werlens "rules" in a clear way,
3. well-researched: Factually accurate and verifiable:
a) it provides references to all sources of information following the APA guidelines; Rating: 8 (0-10) Comments: There is one source used, Lippuner, that was on BlackBoard. However it is just one source, the information in it was correct and understandable. It seems correct to use it.
b) it provides in-line citations (including page numbers) from reliable sources for direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons—science-based articles should follow the APA guidelines. Rating: 7 (0-10) Comments: Also this is done very well. It provides page numbers and correct APAcitations that make it easy to track the facts.
4. Broad in its coverage:
a) it addresses the main aspects of the topic; Rating: 8 (0-10) Comments: Although short, the entry covers the very core of "rules" and that is exactly what a encyclopedia should do.
b) it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail. Rating: 8 (0-10) Comments: It is really focussed and to the point. No "wanderings" are used.
5. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without bias, giving due weight to each. Rating: 8 (0-10) Comments: The wiki is written in a very neutral and to-the-point way, no personal or emotional aspects are involved. It is just a brief but complete description.
6. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute. Rating: 7 (0-10) Comments: It has only been edited once, by the initial writer. It seems to me that it hasn't changed much.
7. Well-structured:
a) a lead: a concise lead section that summarizes the topic and prepares the reader for the detail in the subsequent sections; Rating: 7 (0-10) Comments: Because "rules" is not a very large concept it can be explained fairly easily and short. In such a short entry, to much structuring headings would be annoying instead of helpful.
b) appropriate structure: a system of hierarchical section headings and a substantial but not overwhelming table of contents. Rating: 8 (0-10) Comments: The structure with sections is done very well. This makes it easy to understand.
c) categories: is the entry categorized in a correct way? (Which categories are missing?) Rating: 8 (0-10) Comments: The categories that are used are used correctly, I feel like the whole concept is explained quite well.
8. Illustrated: if possible, by images, maps, schematic overviews:
a) images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content; Rating: - (0-10) Comments: Pictures are nog really helpful with this concept, text can explain it and pictures would not be helpful.
b) images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions. Rating: (0-10) Comments: -
9. Length: It stays focused on the main topic without going into unnecessary detail and uses summary style. Rating: 7 (0-10) Comments: As mentioned, the text is very to the point. Details are left out and the wiki really is a summary of the concept of ontology.
Evaluated by TeunVanDeVen 14:19, 26 October 2012 (CEST)
